United States v. Sidney Shelton, No. 08-2512 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3582 and Amendment 706 to the sentencing guidelines is foreclosed by United States v. Scurlack, holding that sentence may not be reduced for defendants who have pleaded guilty pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C). District court's denial of reduction is affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-2512 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Sidney L. Shelton, also known as * Andre Henderson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: March 9, 2009 Filed: May 1, 2009 ___________ Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In 1998, Sidney L. Shelton pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute cocaine base. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1)(C) (1998),1 Shelton agreed to a 300-month sentence. The district court2 accepted Shelton s plea agreement and sentenced him to 300 months imprisonment. 1 Former Rule 11(e)(1)(C) is now Rule 11(c)(1)(C). See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 advisory committee note. 2 The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. In 2008, after the U.S. Sentencing Commission approved the crack cocaine amendments to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, Shelton moved for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court denied Shelton s motion because it found that Shelton s Rule 11(e)(1)(C) plea agreement made him ineligible for such a reduction. Shelton appeals the district court s ruling and argues that, as a matter of law, his Rule 11(e)(1)(C) plea agreement does not make him ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction pursuant to the crack cocaine amendments. Our decision in United States v. Scurlark, 560 F.3d 839 (8th Cir 2009), forecloses Shelton s argument. In Scurlark, we rejected a materially indistinguishable argument and held that courts may not, based on subsequent Guidelines amendments, reduce sentences under § 3582(c)(2) for defendants who have pleaded guilty pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreements. Id. at 841 43. For the reasons set forth in Scurlark, we therefore affirm the district court. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
